Light plane crash Hillcrest QLD 6.4.23

[trailer]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-07/light-plane-crash-hillcrest-queensland-female-pilot-injured/102200418

[red750]

More photos:

 

[old man emu]

Don't think that'll buff out.

 

Too bad you can't see the starboard engine, cause the port one was working.

 

Note the direction the fence posts have been knocked down. The plane has come in from the left side of the picture, on its belly and the port wing has clipped a tree. That made it rotate about 180 degrees and the nose must have hit another tree.  Who's backing the idea that the starboard engine quit?

 

[willedoo]

Looks like one of AirMed's Chieftians.

[FlyBoy1960]

With all those esky's they were heading to a PARTY !   Could be Easter Eggs !

(hopefully not blood or donor parts)

[red750]

[red750]

[Carbon Canary]

As the saying goes for twin engine aircraft……..”it’s ok if one engine quits - the other will still be able to carry you to the scene of the crash”

 

The pilot did well to walk away from this one- I wish her a speedy recovery. The contents of those eskies is a concern though. A good chance they were blood supplies leading into Easter.

[red750]

Looks like she tried to put down on that path alongside the rail line, only to hit those thin posts creating the serated leading edge of the left wing. They would have been impossible to spot when selecting a landing area.

[Teckair]

19 minutes ago, Carbon Canary said:

As the saying goes for twin engine aircraft……..”it’s ok if one engine quits - the other will still be able to carry you to the scene of the crash”

There are people on here who claimed that a piston engine twin can fly on one engine with no problems eg Whyalla Airlines. 

[facthunter]

Later aircraft are certified to fly on one engine. They have retractable gear and feathering props. You are meant to land at the nearest suitable landing field as the remaining motor is operating at higher than  normal power levels.

   This aircraft was operated single pilot and factors other than an engine failure may have required an off field landing.   Nev

[onetrack]

Give her top levels of credit for doing an exceptionally good job of landing a pretty big twin in a residential, fairly heavily timbered area, with no fatalities, minimal injury to herself, and even minimal property damage. 

That's not a "light plane" by anyones stretch of imagination. Even empty, a Chieftain weighs nearly 2000kgs.

 

 

Edited April 7, 2023 by onetrack

[Student Pilot]

Using old aircraft with 20,000 hours for aeromedical (Even if it's just supplies) is no longer acceptable. A turbine powered aircraft is way more reliable than two recips that were designed 70 years ago. GA is in such a mess they either have high time old worn out Cessnas/Pipers or million dollar turbines, nothing in between.

[facthunter]

Just to clarify land at nearest..... doesn't mean a paddock or questionable  condition situation. Engine(s) may have had nothing to do with  the need to land  at that time but they could . For instance if the engine wouldn't feather or had substantial damage to a cowl ,all bets are off regarding ability to stay in the air..  Nev

[facthunter]

Turbines are multiple times more reliable than Pistons, not just a few %.. You can easily "cook" one of those 540s. It can be a high workload plane.  Nev

[Carbon Canary]

There is commentary on another site that this was fuel exhaustion/switching related. No verification of how this conclusion was arrived at was supplied however, so take that with a large grain of NaCl.

[red750]

In a recording of her communication with ATC, played on Ch 7 News,she reported both engines stopped. They asked if she could reach the airport, she said no, looking for somewhere to land.

[old man emu]

2 minutes ago, red750 said:

she reported both engines stopped

That port prop looks like it was turning when it struck the ground. Typical prop strike bending.

[red750]

Just reporting what she said on the tape.

 

[flying dog]

CH7 claims the plane may have run out of fuel.

 

 

Sorry.    Shouldn't post unverified claims.

Edited April 7, 2023 by flying dog

[planedriver]

None run well simply on the smell of it. No post crash fire fortunately.

We'll have to wait to find out if this was the case.

So close to the final destination too, but if you don't have much in reserve that's always a possibility.

The young lady pilot is OK,which is the main thing.

I'm sure all on here wish her well.

[kgwilson]

At only 3km from Archerfield fuel starvation is a likely cause. One engine may have completely stopped & the other just sputtering with the last few drops of fuel producing virtually no power. We will find out in due course.

[Teckair]

Ch7 news said she was at 9000 ft when both engines stopped which didn't make sense to me. Probably just incorrect reporting. 

[facthunter]

You don't know. That's about where you'd normally be and IF  both engines stop. FUEL shortage and/or selector error look as possibilities. You'd also consider were the engine(s) able to be feathered?  Props turning don't mean  they were delivering power. They would be absorbing energy and reducing time in  the air and glide distance.. Nev

[Kiter]

Planefinder shows

1942UTC 9,000' at 197 knots (basically unchanged for over an hour)

1945 8,307' at 197 knots

1950 5,533' at 181 knots

1955 3,536' at 109 knots (best glide?)

2000 2,548' at 109 knots

2005 300' at 93 knots